Explains a MySQL audit rule by ID: why it matters and a safe example, helping you understand migration risks and apply safer SQL.
Explain one rule (e.g. "L02"): why it matters and a safe example.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the output includes a 'safe example,' but does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication is required, or what happens with invalid rule IDs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the action and expected output shape.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important gaps: valid rule ID format, whether the operation is read-only, and error behavior are all unspecified. It is usable but not complete enough for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter. It gives only an example value ('L02') and does not specify format, valid range, or where rule IDs come from.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Explain one rule,' and adds the intended content ('why it matters and a safe example'). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'list_rules' by emphasizing one rule, but does not explicitly contrast with it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'list_rules' or the review tools. Usage is only implied by the word 'Explain' and the example rule ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.